If you are so inclined, I have written an essay I would like you offer against anarchism. I think this is a different sort of case than is usually presented, because I am one who actually takes consent seriously while still arguing against anarchism and for government of a given kind. If you could give me feedback in the form of logical reasons why you find the essay unconvincing I would appreciate it.

I started reading it, but after several pages I got the feeling it's going to turn into a definition game, so I just wanted to address what I've read so far, see how you respond, and then continue later.

If people voluntarily associate with each other and voluntarily create rules amongst themselves, then I wouldn't call that government. I'd call that a social club, or in some cases a collective, or a business. A lot hinges on what you mean by the word "jurisdiction" when you defined government. If a person's jurisdiction is themselves and their property, then fine, they can voluntarily play whatever games they want. If that "jurisdiction" extends over people and property outside of the club, then the initiation of force starts there, and that's when I stop respecting that organization, and it becomes criminal.

I am sorry I didn't read the whole thing to start, but I made a partial effort, which is better than the typical tl;dr response you were expecting

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

"If that "jurisdiction" extends over people and property outside of the club, then the initiation of force starts there, and that's when I stop respecting that organization, and it becomes criminal."

I disagree with this, because it depends. As I argue in the essay, we all have a right to come to another's defense, wherever on Earth we want. If someone is being robbed or kidnapped or otherwise their rights are being violated, we all have an individual right to help. Therefore, we have a right to form a systematic organization to help, in whatever jurisdiction we prescribe -- a "natural law" government.

Further, I disagree with you calling a city-state a "game." I mean, let's get real here. I don't wish to be the least bit impolite, but by you calling my idea a "game", you're asking for something blunt, so I'll give you something blunt: It is far more appropriate to think about anarchy being a game than full-fledged governments with potentially millions of people, with courts, police, etc. And that's because up until this point, anarchy is nothing more than a game. It's just something fantasized about; it's a mind-game only. Whereas government, however you judge its appropriateness, is actually serious business.

You may have a right to come to another's defence, but are you claiming that you have a right to hand the person a bill afterward and demand payment, or else?

Absolutely not. I believe in true consent.

Then you don't believe in government. Look, if you allow for a "gov't" that doesn't coerce or tax anyone, then it's just a voluntary association. "What sets the nation state apart is the monopoly on violence." I actually started writing an essay myself on this exact same topic, back when I was a minarchist slipping into the anarchist sphere. I tried to argue that "voluntary governance" was okay, but then I realized that this IS what anarchism is about. hence....

Unfortunately, the annals of history indicate that government is an all too serious threat to the existence of human beings. Warning: May cause serious injury, blindness, or death.......

It's a serious threat to us, but we are the pawns in our tax livestock farmers' games. Any efforts by the livestock to justify their masters' owning them is a little silly, that's why I used the term "game" in the beginning.

PS: I am afraid I struck a nerve with my previous post, please don't take offense, none of this is personal, I would not want you to be offended by what I say. I appreciate discussions like this, and if my writing is too rude, please let me know, and I'll tone it down.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

PS: I am afraid I struck a nerve with my previous post, please don't take offense, none of this is personal, I would not want you to be offended by what I say. I appreciate discussions like this, and if my writing is too rude, please let me know, and I'll tone it down.

Thanks, I appreciate your intent.

I'm afraid there's not much to talk about in your response, because you're just registering apriori disagreement before having read the essay, rather than actually dealing with the issues raised there. Every one of your responses is already handled there.

It is really presumptuous and premature and even insulting to conclude that I'm trying to justify masters etc. Indeed, the evidence in this thread so far would seem to indicate that you are dogmatic and not open to changing your position if it is wrong. I am not saying that is the case, that is just what is indicated by your responses given that you haven't even read the essay. I mean, the proper approach isn't to tell me what I already know and argued against, it's to deal with my particular arguments.

I would also add that I am NOT a minarchist. My view is that minarchism is at its core totalitarianism, and that both anarchists and minarchists need to yield some ground in this perennial debate -- if their interest is in defending individual rights. Individual rights theory can support neither alternative. My view is a third, transcending alternative, which has characteristics of both minarchism and anarchism.

Further, I hold that although my view is unique in its emphasis, it is actually not unique relative to what others in history have already said, and that was subsequently ignored. My book explains my position and some of its relation to what others have said, but also, John Locke expressed my position in various places but what he said has been de-emphasized over time. For example (and this is just one):

Quote

Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of Nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

As I mentioned when I was only part-way through it, I knew exactly what it was going to be about. You insisting on being allowed to call voluntary association government. That's the entire paper.

Look, I don't care too much what you call it. But you have to understand that government has always been coercive, and the idea of organizing society without coercion was first adopted by people who are now called anarchists. You seem afraid to describe yourself as an anarchist, and cling to the term government, because you are someone who doesn't to allow "smoldering contempt for government" to cause "alienation between himself and society." You also pointed out that a majority of people disagree with the principles we supposedly share. Therefore you already don't fit so well into "society," so it would be best to just give up on this war over the meaning of a word. It's hopeless, and not really a big deal.

But I suppose this alone won't satisfy you, you'll want me to "prove" that I read your paper, so I'll point out a few problems, but don't have space to list them all.

Quote

Ifan association is formed on these premises, say, identifying a continental geographical jurisdiction andbeing founded upon a Constitution outlining this purpose, then it is perfectly legitimate, so long as itdoes not prevent others in undertaking the same. This fits the underlined definition of government Igave in the previous section. This is the first point that proves anarchism to be false on the grounds ofNatural Law.

You've defined government to include anarchism, and have failed to prove "anarchsim to be false"

Quote

Any anarchist “defense agency” with the samemeasure of strength as a given government would appear to have exactly the same “sovereignty” asthat government.

This one I can't respond to because I don't know what you mean.

Quote

Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world. This is whypolitical might, which is the aggregation of the might of many individuals, should be forged in a goodcomprehension of natural rights, including a proper concept of sovereignty.

I don't see why the first sentence necessitates the second. Seems like an assertion.

Quote

True sovereignty is rootedin the moral truth that an individual may take any action whatever so long as it doesn't interfere withthe equal right of others to engage in their own actions. Sovereignty over one's property in land residesin legitimate ownership, not merely pointing and claiming vast swaths of land.Even going by historic precedent the anarchist rebuttal falls, but it gets worse for the anarchist viewwhen it comes to applying the prerogatives Natural Law grants us concerning jurisdictions of manmadelaw.

Which anarchist rebuttal fell?

Quote

In this context, it is both necessary and legitimate to ban secession,instead requiring that a dissenting homeowner must sell his property to someone who will follow theman-made laws that were originally consented to.

When you write "ban secession" it should read, follow a contract.

Quote

If consent is violated by an“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. Thislast fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for theformerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switchupon the first violation of consent?

Sure to the first part. How much must it transform before it's government? I don't care to make efforts at quantifying it. I oppose coercive monopolization of force...always. If the homeowner's association does a little of that, then I oppose it. Will I take up arms to stop it? We make decisions on the margin. Intellectually I'm against it though.

Quote

To some extent, they want what I want, they just do not wantto call it “government”; according to them, government is by definition not formal in the sense of beingbased upon rational methodology.

Formality has nothing to do with it.

Quote

Speaking from a purely tactical perspective, why would the anarchist not want to leverage thepopulace's own conceptual understanding of what a government really ought to be doing? Rather thanobliterating this highly virtuous expectation that things should be done the right way for the rightreasons by government, why not encourage and strengthen this very healthy spirit of the rule ofrational law, helping them see where government doesn't follow a proper conception of the rule of lawand advocating for positive change?Indeed, note the harm caused from a population that is apatheticabout what government is doing. Anarchism doesn't counter this apathy, it breeds it.

Oh man. A lot here. From a tactical perspective, we don't want government doing anything. From a tactical perspective, voting and running for office is undermining our own opposition against the use of force, because we are imposing our will on others. Better to not violate our own principles.

It's hardly a "virtuous expectation"....in fact, it's beyond moronic. You expect to hand authority to someone, and then have them look out for your interests? It's the worst type of principal-agent problem...and the reason no "government" has ever worked.

And we do help people see where government doesn't follow a proper conception of the rule of law..and we do advocate for positive change...You're just resorting to the classic punk-rock ancom stereotype of anarchists being whiners with nothing to offer. We've heard this before, it's not new.

Quote

No one thinks that modern governments are perfect or that past governments have evenbeen reasonable

You are divorced from reality on this one.

Quote

But if government can be good and valid under certain circumstances, then it is imperative toidentify these precisely and to take action to reform government.

Okay, so let's play a game and suppose I agree with your attempts to transform the English language. In that case, anarchists should really call themselves supporters of voluntary "government." Okay...so they by ignoring the criminal state, and creating our own "governments" (read: defense organizations) and talking with people, we are doing just what you have prescribed.....As I've already mentioned, running for office is not an option.

Quote

To be consistent, an anarchist must either reject anarchy or reject the individual right to formgovernment, and if he chooses the latter, then notwithstanding his protestations to the contrary, thusreveal himself as not in actuality being a true defender of Man's Rights.

At this point, it's pretty clear....the answer is no.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

Look, I don't care too much what you call it. But you have to understand that government has always been coercive, and the idea of organizing society without coercion was first adopted by people who are now called anarchists.

Argumentum ad populum.

Quote

You seem afraid to describe yourself as an anarchist, and cling to the term government, because you are someone who doesn't to allow "smoldering contempt for government" to cause "alienation between himself and society." You also pointed out that a majority of people disagree with the principles we supposedly share. Therefore you already don't fit so well into "society," so it would be best to just give up on this war over the meaning of a word. It's hopeless, and not really a big deal.

Ad hominem.

Quote

But I suppose this alone won't satisfy you, you'll want me to "prove" that I read your paper, so I'll point out a few problems, but don't have space to list them all.

Baseless assertion regarding the problems you don't list.

Quote

Quote

Ifan association is formed on these premises, say, identifying a continental geographical jurisdiction andbeing founded upon a Constitution outlining this purpose, then it is perfectly legitimate, so long as itdoes not prevent others in undertaking the same. This fits the underlined definition of government Igave in the previous section. This is the first point that proves anarchism to be false on the grounds ofNatural Law.

You've defined government to include anarchism, and have failed to prove "anarchsim to be false"

That's MY paper and MY definitions. I did not define government to mean anarchism. I defined government to mean something YOU call anarchism. Which is the point being argued. So this remark of yours is question begging.

Quote

Quote

Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world. This is whypolitical might, which is the aggregation of the might of many individuals, should be forged in a goodcomprehension of natural rights, including a proper concept of sovereignty.

I don't see why the first sentence necessitates the second. Seems like an assertion.

"Seems like" is not a refutation of anything I said.

Quote

Quote

True sovereignty is rootedin the moral truth that an individual may take any action whatever so long as it doesn't interfere withthe equal right of others to engage in their own actions. Sovereignty over one's property in land residesin legitimate ownership, not merely pointing and claiming vast swaths of land.Even going by historic precedent the anarchist rebuttal falls, but it gets worse for the anarchist viewwhen it comes to applying the prerogatives Natural Law grants us concerning jurisdictions of manmadelaw.

Which anarchist rebuttal fell?

Questions are not a refutation of anything I said.

Quote

Quote

In this context, it is both necessary and legitimate to ban secession,instead requiring that a dissenting homeowner must sell his property to someone who will follow theman-made laws that were originally consented to.

When you write "ban secession" it should read, follow a contract.

Suggestions on wording are not refuting anything I said.

Quote

Quote

If consent is violated by an“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. Thislast fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for theformerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switchupon the first violation of consent?

Sure to the first part. How much must it transform before it's government? I don't care to make efforts at quantifying it. I oppose coercive monopolization of force...always. If the homeowner's association does a little of that, then I oppose it. Will I take up arms to stop it? We make decisions on the margin. Intellectually I'm against it though.

Avoiding answering a question is not refuting what I said.

Quote

Quote

To some extent, they want what I want, they just do not wantto call it “government”; according to them, government is by definition not formal in the sense of beingbased upon rational methodology.

Formality has nothing to do with it.

Empty assertions are not refutations.

...

I see no need to go on. You are not being logical. That should trouble you some.

You've thought a lot about this topic and I commend you for your work.

You make the point that one going around and claiming to be an atheist is as ridiculous as one going around and claiming to be an atoothfairyist. It's better, instead, to claim what one is for, not against. And in this regard anarchists are not identifying what they are for, only against.

I couldn't agree more. I think it is for this reason that many people prefer to use the term voluntaryist or agorist, instead of anarchist. I prefer the term anarchist because its meaning is widely understood as one who wishes to abolish government. Voluntaryist and agorist are widely unknown terms, althought that is rapidly changing. Perhaps you would like to comment on your opinions of voluntaryists and agorists instead of anarchists?

Next, I would like to tell you how I understand anarchy to be. I will be doing a post on this in greater detail in the future. Anarchy means no rulers. To me, anarchy is truth. This is because the truth is there are no rulers. The rules have always been, currently are, and always will be the EXACT SAME. The rules are defined in natural law, created by god, or nature, and cannot be revoked, only ignored. Man made law is no law at all, under any circumstances. It is merely human action. Man does not create rules, only threats. And sometimes people acts on those threat.

I rarely ever talk about rights. To me, rights do not exist. Libertarians needs to stop talking about rights. Rights have little to no bearing in human action. Life is nothing more than a gigantic power struggle. We all have our ideas of how society should look. I encourage people to be the change they want to see in the world, as Gandhi taught. This is why I don't post articles talking about reforming government, and rarely even abolishing government, but instead to build a society in the image we wish to live.

You often get into battles of semantics about the definition of government, whether you want to or not. If you keep writing about whatever the hell government means to you, you're basically going to be condemning yourself to an eternal battle. Ask a communist and a capitalist what "capitalism" means and you'll get two wildly different answers. Who's right? Who gives a shit! The real question is, what are you going to do about it?

Frankly, I don't stress out too much when the anarcho-syndicalists rag on capitalism. I generally like the vast majority of what they do. If they stop paying taxes and work to bring down the department of defense and BofA, they're okay in my book. Until any of them start initiating violence against me, my family or friends, or steal my property, I'm cool with them.

You mention how the anarchists view the government as being vs. the people. I think you're wrong in that assumption. I started thinking more about anarchy when it dawned on me one day that it is my neighbors oppressing me through the use of the government. This was a big revelation for me because I had been raised in the John Birch Society, thinking that the bad guys were the Rockefellers and Trilateral Commission. It wasn't until I realized that the Rockefellers have absolutely nothing to do with how retarded my neighbors are that I came to view the government as the symptom of a larger problem.

At the end of the day humanity as a whole has been, currently is, and probably always will be trying to find better ways of getting along with one another. I feel confident that as long as I do not initiate aggression against peaceful people, I am living the most moral life I can. I also feel confident that people who do initiate aggression against peaceful people are criminals and should be resisted. Call that whatever you want. I won't stop you.

Look, I don't care too much what you call it. But you have to understand that government has always been coercive, and the idea of organizing society without coercion was first adopted by people who are now called anarchists.

Argumentum ad populum.

No. Every single thing I said here is true.

Quote

Quote

You seem afraid to describe yourself as an anarchist, and cling to the term government, because you are someone who doesn't to allow "smoldering contempt for government" to cause "alienation between himself and society." You also pointed out that a majority of people disagree with the principles we supposedly share. Therefore you already don't fit so well into "society," so it would be best to just give up on this war over the meaning of a word. It's hopeless, and not really a big deal.

Ad hominem.

No. These are legitimate concerns I raise, and I used your own language. Society “disagrees” with both of us, so your point about anarchism alienating me from society is pointless.

Quote

Quote

But I suppose this alone won't satisfy you, you'll want me to "prove" that I read your paper, so I'll point out a few problems, but don't have space to list them all.

Baseless assertion regarding the problems you don't list.

I don’t owe you anything. I don't owe you a line by line analysis. The assertion isn’t baseless, it’s an induction based on the large number of problems I DID find.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ifan association is formed on these premises, say, identifying a continental geographical jurisdiction andbeing founded upon a Constitution outlining this purpose, then it is perfectly legitimate, so long as itdoes not prevent others in undertaking the same. This fits the underlined definition of government Igave in the previous section. This is the first point that proves anarchism to be false on the grounds ofNatural Law.

You've defined government to include anarchism, and have failed to prove "anarchsim to be false"

That's MY paper and MY definitions. I did not define government to mean anarchism. I defined government to mean something YOU call anarchism. Which is the point being argued. So this remark of yours is question begging.

You did nothing other than define government one way, in such a way so that it overlapped with the commonly accepted definition of anarchy, and then tried to “argue” (if that’s even possible, because they are YOUR definitions, and hence correct as you defined them) that the terms were mutually exclusive. If that’s the “point” then we might as well stop.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Might doesn't make right, but might will have its way in the world. This is whypolitical might, which is the aggregation of the might of many individuals, should be forged in a goodcomprehension of natural rights, including a proper concept of sovereignty.

I don't see why the first sentence necessitates the second. Seems like an assertion.

"Seems like" is not a refutation of anything I said.

“Seems like” was my way of being polite. There is nothing to refute. I agree with the first sentence. You said “this is why…” meaning that the first sentence necessitated the second. But you have not made that connection. I can’t refute your normative opinion of what “should” be done.

Quote

Quote

Quote

True sovereignty is rootedin the moral truth that an individual may take any action whatever so long as it doesn't interfere withthe equal right of others to engage in their own actions. Sovereignty over one's property in land residesin legitimate ownership, not merely pointing and claiming vast swaths of land.Even going by historic precedent the anarchist rebuttal falls, but it gets worse for the anarchist viewwhen it comes to applying the prerogatives Natural Law grants us concerning jurisdictions of manmadelaw.

Which anarchist rebuttal fell?

Questions are not a refutation of anything I said.

Did anyone say that questions were refutations? I’m asking a question. Is that allowed? Are we discussing this or not? You don’t seem like you want to.

Quote

Quote

Quote

In this context, it is both necessary and legitimate to ban secession,instead requiring that a dissenting homeowner must sell his property to someone who will follow theman-made laws that were originally consented to.

When you write "ban secession" it should read, follow a contract.

Suggestions on wording are not refuting anything I said.

Again, not every comment someone makes is going to refute anything. There’s a thing called discussion. We exchange thoughts. Then we think. Then we exchange more thoughts, and try to understand one another. All of your responses have been extremely defensive, and I’m not even attacking. Relax man…….I’m pointing out that in your situation, there is no criminal organization, so anarchists (in the real world) would not call it government. So there couldn’t be secession. Sovereign individuals make contracts, we don’t tend to call them treaties. They live together as neighbors, so we wouldn’t say that you “annex” one another’s properties.

Quote

Quote

Quote

If consent is violated by an“anarchist defense agency,” then they do not call this anarchy anymore, they call it government. Thislast fact raises the obvious question about just how much consent must be violated in order for theformerly anarchic system to magically transform into government. Does it instantaneously switchupon the first violation of consent?

Sure to the first part. How much must it transform before it's government? I don't care to make efforts at quantifying it. I oppose coercive monopolization of force...always. If the homeowner's association does a little of that, then I oppose it. Will I take up arms to stop it? We make decisions on the margin. Intellectually I'm against it though.

Avoiding answering a question is not refuting what I said

Again, no attempt to refute was made. I shared my thoughts, and you ignored them. I don’t think these questions are answerable, partially because I don’t believe in magic ….and I’m a relativist, not an objectivist, sometimes questions don’t have clear cut answers. Other times I’m just not comfortable speaking for all anarchists.

Quote

Quote

Quote

To some extent, they want what I want, they just do not wantto call it “government”; according to them, government is by definition not formal in the sense of beingbased upon rational methodology.

Formality has nothing to do with it.

Empty assertions are not refutations.

It’s not an assertion. I’m telling you, as an anarchist, that anarchists do not care how formal an institution is. So, your “according to them” assertion, as you might call it, is not applicable.

Quote

I see no need to go on. You are not being logical. That should trouble you some.

Ok.

How about instead of bickering over the name of what you believe in, how about you just compare stances on issues to real world anarchists. Then you will find that they are the same, and you will understand that in the real world, people who oppose taxation are ANARCHISTS. Anarchists homesteaded this position. There are anarchists who don’t like to use the term anarchist. They choose, “voluntaryist,” or something like that. It’s fine. It doesn’t matter. It’s something they choose to do so as to not turn people off to their ideas. But they understand they are anarchists. I’m sorry that you dislike the word so much. I know anarcho-capitalists who don’t like the word capitalist, so they refuse to be called that. We might agree on everything else. I don’t care if they prefer “market anarchist” or whatever. I see our situation as analogous.PS: Amen, to Seth’s comment on “rights.” I don’t like thinking in that framework either. It just confuses people.

Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."-MAM

Question: You guys are familiar with the Tower of Babel story, right? How is it useful to be not picking terminology using a rational method? I mean, if we just pick our personally preferred words for everything that'd be pretty hard to communicate.

Also, I'm wondering what you call a state of nature where there is no organized system yet. Most people call this state anarchy. So what is the anarchist word for what most people call anarchy?

How is it "chaos" to walk into the deep woods and go camping? If ten others are nearby, and we have no formal rules, how is that necessarily chaos? Sure, it could be chaos if the people were criminals, and that's why people form governments. But it's not necessarily chaos.